The clash between the owner of Pacific Raceways, Jason Fiorito, and local residents at a town meeting on October 13, has awakened a sleeping giant of community protest.
The issues have expanded far beyond fighting noise violations.
King County Council has been quietly advancing a proposed ordinance (2010-1089), co-sponsored by Pete Von Reichbauer that would allow a major expansion of the racetrack-- under an independent district overlay provision—thereby effectively nullifying any noise mitigation rules or environmental accountability.
According to Department of Ecology official, Chris Coffin, the department, which has undergone budget cuts, has not been aware of the proposed legislation. During the past few years, as Fiorito has advanced his agenda, the DOE has simultaneously been conducting water quality tests along Soos Creek tributaries and other waterways that empty into Green River.
Earlier 2004 and 2006 reports identified 4 locations along Soos Creek, which don’t meet the Clean Water Act standard for temperature. It is unclear if more areas of the creek have dropped below standards in recent years.
On January, 2009, DOE published a report that outlined plans to restore several tributaries that flow into Green River, including Soos Creek.
According to the DOE report, colder temperatures are important for the survival of endangered salmon that spawn in the vital waterways. It states that fish breathe oxygen in the water (dissolved oxygen). Cooler water holds more oxygen. When water is too warm or has too little oxygen and local fish can face thermal stress and harm.
Soos Creek is an important migration corridor for returning salmon species that spawn in the waters. They include endangered Puget Sound Chinook, Coho, sockeye, chum, pink, steelhead trout, and cutthroat trout. These fish are a vital commodity and they need cold water for optimum health during various stages of their lives.
The DOE report states that trees and shoreline vegetation are crucial for shade that cools water temperatures. Erosion, sediment, and construction can be a negative factor in maintaining colder water.
During a time, when DOE is advancing plans to bring Soos Creek into water temperature and pollution compliance for the benefit of salmon and fish, which are considered a vital resource, the proposed legislation to expand Pacific Raceways would allow trees to be cut on the ridge above that area of Soos Creek.
In addition, there are no storm water ponds or water runoff management plans in place for the track currently or in the proposed ordinance. At least one culvert carries water from the raceway, under the railroad track, and dumps into Soos Creek. The likelihood the runoff water carries metals and chemical contaminates from the raceway is presumably very high.
Furthermore, the issues of unregulated traffic congestion as a result of such proposed racetrack expansion would burden SR-167, hwy. 18, and surrounding residential streets—more than they do currently.
The community has organized into a grassroots group called, Citizens Against Raceway Expansion. They have greatly improved the out reach into the neighborhood, where hundreds of people have tolerated the invasive noise, without any knowledge of the rights they have under the track’s current permit. Even fewer people have been aware of the proposed legislation moving through King County Council that would eviscerate any future ability to fight noise or hold the track morally or environmentally accountable.
The ordinance, if approved, would elevate the rights of a non-essential, recreational facility, above the rights of taxpayers, who have seen their property values plummet.
The members of C.A.R.E held a meeting in Auburn on the evening of November 2, to discuss their options. Approximately 30 people were in attendance and they included many professionals, who volunteered to take on “assignments” to move their goal forward.
Getting the word out to unsuspecting property owners was identified as a major priority and it was agreed that a post card mail out was the most effective way to educate people on the high stakes involved if the race track legislation gets passed. The cards will be mailed to zip codes within a ten mile radius, because--contrary to DDES assumptions—some people who live that far out are impacted by the noise.
In addition, everyone agreed that getting biologists, environmental specialists, legal authorities, and other experts up to speed and involved in the process would be crucial to a positive outcome for the community.
DOE official, Chris Coffin, said the timing was right. Although, he has only been in his assignment for a short time, Soos Creek has been on his agenda and learning of the proposed legislation and community battle has served to escalate his time table.
The number one mission of C.A.R.E. is to stop the proposed legislation and race track expansion by whatever means possible. As one member said, “even NASCAR would not throw the environment under the bus.”
Related articles:
Pacific Raceways plans to expand
Pacific Raceways owner gets blasted by local residents
***Jean Williams 2010
Comments
It is outrageous the way some local governments try to pull sneaky deals over, while unsuspecting citizens actually think they are working for their benefit. King County Council deserves a big rasberry and the racebrack owner deserves to get hit with every fine that can be thrown at him. The environment and wildlife always losses with these kind of self-serving deals.
Thank you, Jean for an articulate article that really captures the fight we are in to save our very lives, our homes, our environment, from the assault we are facing from this ONE business owner. It is amazing, really, that this proposed Ordinance has gone as far as it has in the King County Council, since it flies in the face of environmental laws and allows this one property owner to skip all the rules everyone else needs to follow, namely, cutting down trees on steep slopes and in wetlands, filling in wetlands... and, as you point out, on over 300 acres, not even one stormwater holding pond.
who does one have to know in DDES to be able to get away with this?
I hope the Council will get the message and vote NO on this Ordinance that is currently in the Environment and Transportation committee. Please write to Environment and Transportation Committee
here are the council members ...
Larry Phillips Chair
Pete von Reichbauer Vice Chair
Larry Gossett Councilmember
Jane Hague Councilmember
Julia Patterson Councilmember
and urge them to side with thousands of families and not despoil the environment and destroy our property values, and to vote NO on Ordinance 2010-0189
We have lived on a small tributary to Soosette Creek for years. We planted heavy vegetative growth along the creek and do not use any pesticides on our property to help ensure clean water. Our neighbors down-creek have done the same. This small creek supports cutthroat and other trout species, per a study by fisheries done years ago. Once the study was done, we were approved to start releasing salmon fry into the creek. We pick up those fry at the hatchery each spring, and now we eagerly watch for some of those babies to return and spawn each year. It has been a successful project, and we will continue the release each spring.
Our creek dumps directly into Soosette and then into Soos Creek, thereby bordering two sides of Pacific Raceways. The area where the ordinance proposes to clear trees will adversely affect the waters and the chance for these salmon fry to survive.
Over 20 years ago, when Pacific Raceways was Seattle International Raceways, fisheries did a huge project to fortify Soosette creek for salmon survival. Over the period of several days, helicopters were used to drop large logs into the creek to help restore the natural habitat in order to enhance the viability of the creek. This was a costly project. Culverts were redone to restore water flow to allow fish to move back into natural spawning grounds. Per Jean's article, water quality has been tested and plans are being made to further enhance the quality of the water.
The Ordinance proposed by Pacific Raceways will adversely impact fish and wildlife that depend upon this natural area for survival. It will have detrimental consequences to the fish hatchery down stream from the proposed project.
Instead of such grand plans for destroying the environment and the quality of life for all within hearing distance of this facility, Mr Fiorito needs to be concentrating on bringing this facility up to environmental standards of today. His present septic systems need to be upgraded to current standards, retention ponds need to be installed in order to protect groundwater and the creeks. He needs to be concentrating on how to reduce the level of noise pollution. Instead, he cuts down trees that act as noise buffers in the name of expansion and proposes to build grandstands on the banks of the creeks. Mr Fiorito calls himself a good neighbor. He is neither a good neighbor nor a steward of the environment.
Peter says: The owner of Pacific Raceways is a problem only because he has been allowed to get away with it by the County. King County DDES officials should be doing more to support the community and less pandering to Fiorito and his attorney, who is just as complicit in misinterpreting the language of the letters he has copies of. The whole thing smells rotten.
Pete Von Reichbauer may also have been the one who put the $75,000 into the County Budget in 2005, to help Pacific Raceways accomplish this. Last I looked, Pete Von Reichbauer was supposed to represent US, the citizens. Yet, we have never been notified by our Council Representative, or King County!
I want to know how I can get a deal like Pacific Raceways has. We have homes where I live, that are not allowed to clear, or build on the hillside in their own backyard. We have to get permits to cut trees. On a one mile loop around one level of the neighborhood their are 3 storm water drainage ponds. How does Pacific Raceways get away with this? Who has been helping them get away with this?
Kathy says:
I don't know how this is allowed to even happen. I am usually a supporter of King
County and its personnel, who I used to think tried to make life better for the citizens
of King County. But, doesn't this have the "appearance of wrong doing?"
It looks like welfare for a particular business owner: A business owner who is a bad
neighbor, and doesn't follow the conditional use permit, and even says in a public
meeting that he won't follow it; A business owner who creates a "nuisance" by
inundating the community with noise pollution. A business owner who doesn't seem to have
to pay property taxes, let alone at the same rate, as the rest of us do.
And King County's Department of Environmental Services does not enforce the Conditional
Use Permit, despite complaints. Why is that?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!